Under consideration is this petition
for review on certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Decision[1] dated
July 31, 2000 of the Court of Appeals (CA), as reiterated in its Resolution[2] of
July 20, 2001, in CA-G.R. CV No. 57785,
an appeal thereto taken by the herein petitioners from an adverse decision[3] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of TagaytayCity, Branch 18, in its Civil Case No. TG-1220,
an action for reconveyance with damages, thereat commenced by the petitioners
against one Julia Buck, predecessor-in-interest of the herein respondents.

The assailed CA decision affirmed
with minor modification that of the trial court, while the equally challenged
resolution denied the petitioners motion for reconsideration.

At the core of the controversy is a
parcel of land identified as Lot 4863, Cad. 355 of the Tagaytay Cadastre (Lot 4863, for brevity) with an area of
27,742 square meters, more or less.

The decision under review recites the
facts, as follows:

xxx
Juan Endozo claims to be the owner of a parcel of land identified as Lot
4863, Cad. 355 of the Tagaytay Cadastre . The land is described as formerly
within the Municipality of Talisay,
Batangas situated in Barangay Calabuso, but which is allegedly now within TagaytayCity due to a change in the
boundary line dividing TagaytayCity
and Talisay, Batangas. Endozo claims that the lot was part of a family-owned
16-hectare property lot with the flat portion found in Tranka, Talisay, Batangas;
that the 16-hectare property was the subject of an extrajudicial partition
among the heirs of his parents Carlos Endozo and Maria Perez Endozo who had
five children; that on 19 July 1991, he sold the subject lot to
co-plaintiffs-appellants spouses Mr. Jose Ngo and Mrs. Dorothy Ngo in whose
name Cadastral Plan No. Ap-04-006312 was approved; that the portion he sold to
the Ngos is level and near the property which used to belong to Hammond Buck,
[Julias] father; that the spouses Jose and Dorothy Ngo were not able to
transfer the tax declaration from Talisay, Batangas Assessors Office to
Tagaytay City as the said parcel of land had been already declared for taxation
purposes in the name of Julia Buck.

xxxJulia Buck claims ownership of the [disputed]
property as successor to the rights and interest of her father, Mr. Hammond
Buck, once owner of 100 hectares located in TagaytayCity. Julia Buck applied for, and
was granted, Free Patent No. (IV-2) 017534, and was thereafter issued Original
Certificate of Title No 0-602 over the property which was registered with the
Office of the Register of Deeds of Tagaytay City in hername on 23 November 1982.

Juan
Endozos complaint was initially dismissed . The order of dismissal was
reconsidered and the case ordered reinstated upon the filing of an amended
complaint [docketed as Civil Case No. TG 1220 of the RTC of Tagaytay City] on 27 January 1992 impleading the
spouses Ngo as additional plaintiffs.

After
the parties presented evidence, the lower court ruled that Julia Buck had the
better right to the land in question; that her title was now indefeasible
against mere tax declarations presented by plaintiff-appellant Juan Endozo for
properties which are located not in Tagaytay but in Talisay, Batangas. The lower
court also noted that Juan Endozo failed to present the extrajudicial
partition which he claimed had been executed by his parents over their alleged
16-hectare landholding.[4]
(Words in brackets added.)

The fallo of the decision[5] dated
June 13, 1997 of the RTC of Tagaytay City, finding for Julia Buck, as
defendant thereat, reads:

IN
VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby renders judgment dismissing the
complaint filed by plaintiffs and ordering the plaintiffs to pay defendant
moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00 and to pay attorneys fees in the
amount of P200,000.00.

SO
ORDERED.

Therefrom, herein petitioners, as
plaintiffs in the court of origin, appealed to the CA whereat their appellate
recourse was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No.
57785.Meanwhile,Julia Buck died and was substituted by the
herein respondentheirs.

As stated at the threshold hereof,
the CA, in its herein assailed Decision[6] dated
July 31, 2000, affirmed with slight modification that of the trial court,
to wit:

WHEREFORE,
the decision of the lower court is accordingly MODIFIED by deleting the awards
of P100,000.00 for moral damages and P200,000.00 for attorneys fees. In all
other respects, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED.

With their motion for reconsideration
having been denied by the CA in its equally challenged Resolution[7] of
July 20, 2001, petitioners are now with this Court via the instant recourse,
claiming that the CA erred -

I

XXX IN HOLDING THAT
THE PROPERTY BEING CLAIMED BY BOTH THE PETITIONERS AND THE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT
EVEN PROXIMATE, AND THAT PETITIONER JUAN ENDOZO FAILED TO SUBMIT A COPY OF THE
EXTRAJUDICIAL PARTITION OF THE 16-HECTARE PROPERTY WHICH ALLEGEDLY INCLUDED THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY.

II

XXX
IN HOLDING THAT THE PRESUMTION THAT THE GRANT OF FREE PATENT AND ISSUANCE OF
THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE BY VIRTUE THEREOF WERE REGULAR AND MADE AFTER ALL THE
REQUIREMENTS HAD BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY THE APPLICANT JULIA BUCK, HAD NOT BEEN
OVERTURNED BY THE EVIDENCE OF PETITIONERS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT PETITIONERS
SPOUSES NGO HAD PRESENTED COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE THEIR
CLAIM OVER DISPUTED PROPERTY.

III

XXX IN NOT HOLDING
THAT THE APPLICANT JULIA BUCK IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE THE BENEFICIARY OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PUBLIC LAND LAW ON FREE PATENT.

IV

XXX IN HOLDING THAT
THE ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE OF PETITIONERS HAD ALREADY PRESCRIBED.

V

XXX
IN NOT GRANTING PETITIONERS MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE, AND CONSIDERING THAT THE SUPPOSED CLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT
LANDASFORESTLAND AND THE INCIPIENT REVERSION PROCEEDINGS TO BE INSTITUTED, WOULD HAVE NO BEARING AND WOULD BE
ADVERSED TO PETITIONERS CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OVER THE SUBJECTLAND.

VI

XXX
IN FAILING TO RESOLVE SQUARELY THE ISSUE THAT THE LOWER
COURT ERRED IN ADOPTING THE DRAFT DECISION OF THE
APPLICANT-DEFENDANT JULIA BUCK.

We DENY.

The main and decisive issue tendered
by the petitioners is factual, revolving as it were around the identity and location
of the disputed Lot 4863.

For sure, the lot
claimed by the petitioners as theirs
had been determined by the trial court
to be different
from Lot 4863
over whichFree
Patent No. (IV-2) 017534 and later Original Certificate of Title No.
0-602 were issued to Julia Buck. The Court finds no reason to disturb the
factual findings of the trial court, it being axiomatic that such findings,
especially when affirmed by the CA, as here, are binding on this Court. It is
not the function of this Court to re-examine the trial courts findings of facts.[8]

Here, the trial court found:

x x x evidence before this court actually shows that Juan
Endozos family owns properties within Talisay, Batangas boundary below the
smaller lot of defendant Julia A. Buck. It is not even near or adjacent to the
lot now being claimed by plaintiffs which is a bigger lot with an area of
27,742 sq, m. If the claim is on the smaller lot adjacent to the Endozo
property in Talisay, the claim would be more credible since as claimed by
Endozo in their tax declaration (Exh. 5), one of the boundaries of the
claimed Endozo property is a land owned by Hammond Buck, the defendants
father. But for Endozo to claim ownership on a distant property not adjacent to
theirs which could not possibly be part of the Talisay land and segregated
merely because of the fact that such portion of his property became part of
Tagaytay City, taxes ones credibility. There is clearly a mistake in Endozo
claiming defendants bigger lot which is farther away and not smaller (OCT 601)
lot which is adjacent to Endozo property still found in Talisay, Batangas and
which in fact adjoins the same on its northern portion.[9]

The CA was
more specific with respect to the difference of the lot thus claimed by the
petitioners and that covered by the free patent of the respondent heirs
predecessor-in-interest, Julia Buck. Wrote the CA:

The
common surveyor of the parties, , who testified for the defense, averred that
what he surveyed for Mariano Endozo (Exhibit 11, Record p. 284) is a parcel
of land containing an area of 38,869 square meters, specifically marked on the
Sketch Plan (Record, p. 286) as Exhibit 11-C, located at Barangay Tranca,
Municipality of Talisay, Province of Batangas . In Exhibit 11,it is shown that the land in dispute Lot4863 and
Lot 4862 pertain to Julia Buck.This is affirmed by the Sketch Plan marked
Exhibit 2 (Record p. 268) where it is shown that both the disputed Lot
4863 (marked Exhibit 2-A and Lot 4862 (marked Exhibit
2-D) belong to Julia
Buck. In the Sketch Plan of the LRA (Record p. 268)
apparently identified as Exhibit 12 and also marked as Exhibit J (evidently
a common exhibit of both parties), it appears that the
disputed Lot 4863 is opposite the lot of
Mariano Endozo. In Exhibits 2, 11, 12 and 15 (Boundary Index Map), what
appears as contiguous to Endozos lot is Lot 4862 which
is not the disputed lot.

As
observed by the trial court, the area surveyed for the Endozos situated in
Tranca, Talisay, Batangas and the one now being claimed by them in Tagaytay are
not even proximate. Moreover, although Juan Endozo claims that there had been
an extrajudicial partition of the 16-hectare property which allegedly includes
the subject lot, he was unable to present a copy of the same.

In their
attempt at a reversal, petitioners, citing Section 44 of the Public Land Act,
as amended by Republic Act No. 6940, alleged that Julia Buck was not qualified
to be a beneficiary or to acquire Lot 4863.

We are not
persuaded. For, apart from the categorical finding of the CA, affirmatory of
that of the trial court, that Julia Buck was so qualified, the latter has in
her favor the presumptive validity of Free Patent No. (IV-2) 017534 and the
complementing presumption that no title by virtue thereof shall be secured
unless the requirements of Section 44 of the Public Land Acthad been complied with. We quote with
approval the trial courts disquisition, as reproduced in the CAs assailed Decision,
on this regard, thus:

Finally, the claim of plaintiffs that Julia Buck had
employed fraudulent and clandestine means to obtain for herself the Free Patent
on the subject land have not been proven with sufficient competent and credible
evidence. For instance, the claim that Julia Buck is not a farmer and has not
been in possession of subject premises was belied by the surveyor who made the
survey in 1981 that said land was in the possession of Julia Buck through
Mang Tino who was working and planting on the same. On the claim that Julia Buck
did not present any plan or that there isnone existing in the Bureau of Lands is testified to by only (sic) plaintiff Jose Ngo from alleged verification
made by him with the personnel of the Bureau of Lands whose name he does not
know. His testimony on this point is hearsay. He should have subpoenaed the
records of the Bureau.

In the absence of any such competent evidence, the
regularity of the performance of official function should apply. As Section 108
of the Public Land Act provides that no patent shall issue nor shall a
concession nor contract be finally approved unless the land has been surveyed
and an accurate plot made thereof by the Bureau of Lands, the presumption is
that there was an approved plan presented by Julia Buck. The presentation of
evidence showing the issuance of a Free Patent in favor of Julia Buck shows
that there is an approved plan for [her] on the lot in question.[10]
(Words in bracket added.)

Given the
above perspective, the issue of whether or not the petitioners suit for
reconveyance based on fraud had already prescribed is of little moment and need
not detain us long. Suffice it to state
that the period within which to file a reconveyance suit based onthat
ground is four (4) years from the discovery of the fraud. Such discovery is
deemed to have taken place from the issuance of the original certificates of
title.[11] Thus,
the trial court correctly ruled:

Even assuming that the Court has jurisdiction to order
reconveyance, said action would have already prescribed in this case. The
basis of [the petitioners] complaint is
that the Free Patent issued in favor of Julia Buck had been obtained through
fraudulent means. Such fraud according to [the petitioners] in the presentation
of their evidence would refer to the failure to submit a proper application, a
plan and failure to post notice in the property itself . Since such is the claim
of [the petitioners], the cause of action would have accrued from the time of
registration of the title and would prescribe four (4) years therefrom. Since
the title was issued in 1982 and the complaint was filed only in 1991, more
than four (4) years had clearly elapsed and that therefore said cause of action
had already prescribed.[12]
(Words in brackets added.)

The petitioners lament that the CA erred in not
granting their motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence
is untenable since the supposed newly-discovered
evidence consisted of proof that Lot 4863 falls under
the category of a forest land
and therefore ought to be reverted to the State. The purported classification
of Lot 4863 as forest, if that be the case,
has no bearing on the petitioners
claim. Stated otherwise, should it be proven that Lot 4863 is not a disposable or
alienable public land, forming as it does part of the forest zone, then the
petitioners have no business asserting a claim over it and ask for its
reconveyance in their favor.

Lastly,
petitioners may not now question the alleged adoption by the trial court of
respondents draft decision. The record shows that both petitioners and
respondents agreed to submit their respective draft decisions to the court.In fact, intheir Manifestation,[13]
petitioners, as plaintiffs, submitted their own draft decision[14] as
the same is wide (sic) practice (sic) in the RTC and approved by the Supreme
Court.We may add, that in fairness to
the trial judge, his decision of June 13, 1997 is far from a mere reproduction
of the respondents draft decision but embodies his own detailed scrutiny and analysis
of the parties testimonial and documentary evidence.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and
Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No.
57785 are AFFIRMED.

Costs
against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

CANCIO C. GARCIA

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNO

Chief Justice

Chairperson

ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ

Associate Justice

RENATO C. CORONA

Associate Justice

ADOLFO S. AZCUNA

Associate Justice

C
E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions
in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.